I agree as well. I would have been quite happy with a draw. Because there is no checks does that mean we can castle while we would have been in check (if you know what I mean)?

I agree too ...

i second that, checks and checkmates are silly in this game, unless check means any threat to blow up the king, even indirectly.

I would like to remove checkmates completely from this game. They make no sense, there is no check, why checkmates?

Here is another scenario that doesn't seem to make sense. If I am placed in a position of checkmate whereby my King is in "check" and I cannot move it any where and I cannot directly take the checking piece the game thinks I have lost. But ... why can't I take another piece which would explode and in so doing eradicate the adhjacent pieces, one of which is the one checking me?

Nope, it would be against the chess rules.

In other words my win still stands :-)

Again I agree and again the response can only be rules is rules. If checkmate is the inability to move a King out of jeopardy (not the actual act of taking the King by the opponent) then this makes sense (in a funny sort of way).

I think it's fine but just not enough. Further I don't think a king next to another king can be checkmate, since I could make any move and my opponent would not be able to capture my king without exploding his.

I agree, but rules is rules! What do you think of the proposed revision, is it helpful?

i still think checkmate is a silly concept in this game the way it is currently defined.

I have reviewed the rules and suggest the following text replace the current second dot point in the rules ...

There is no check in Atomic Chess although there is checkmate (see below). A player who's King is in jeopody does not need to move the King but if they do not make a winning move then the opponent will capture the King in the next move. This has three significant consequences: a player can move a piece which would put the King into conventional check (including the King); a player can castle out of, through or into check; and a player can move their King adjacent to the another King. In this last instance neither King can be taken directly because it would explode their own King at the same time, but a situation may arise where one King is pinned against the edge of the board without a non-check move (therefore in checkmate) and thus lose the game.

Its a common term used in chess Lara, called checkmate.

pawns are good cannon fodder, when properly deployed, as an opponent might not like to take a pwn with a piece if he/she thinks that pwn is protected by another pwn.
KNs are excellent for 'unseen' sorties, have won (and lost) a few Qs because the Kn wasn't spotted.
Rs belong to open lines just as in normal Ch. but I would call an open line any line where yr own pwns have been exchanged, even if an opposing pwn is still on that line.
Bishs should be in the open or just 1 move away from that, ie=behind a pwn yr about to push on.
Qs like to be in the open too, but beware of squares where a Kn might lurk unseen.
I find bluffing can be quite helpful, I remember a game where I challenged the K with an unprotected R, knowing my opponent was worried my Q was behind it. He didn't take and moved the K in the open just like I hoped, 2 moves later my Q took it as he moved where he thought my Q could not get to. But my Q wasn't where I made him think it was.

Black Knight: I've just looked at the game you won against Silent Bob. Why couldn't Silent Bob's king move? I would have thought that the game should have ended in a draw?

Too late, I answered my own question. If my king go to the ajacent sqaure and the other king can't move it does not end in a draw it ends in a victory for me. LOL

In Dark chess the king can take another king to win the game, but in Atomic chess can the king be on adjacent squares thus forcing a draw? i.e. if white's king is on a1 and I put black on b1 my opponent cannot blow up my king thus ending game in a draw. Bearing in mind that checks do no apply in this game.

Please send answer on a postcard to....

I was wondering, can the third check be with one's king.
If I were to put my king on an adjacent sqaure to the opponent's, he/she would be in check. Normally this would be illegal since my king could then be captured. However, if it is the third check, is it possible?

1. I talked to Fencer about my game (ID No 25631)
and he corrected the bug.
2. The rules about check and checkmate are a bit confusing, but I learned them exactly so from all other places where you can play atomic chess. I would suggest to leave them as they are. But I have to agree to grenv's suggestion would simplify the understanding of rules. But this is atomic chess and everywhere else it is played this way...
3. I think there is a bug in the rules description: in the last picture of the rules it says you cannot play Nxe5 because it would cause the kings explosion. This is not true, this move kills the opponent's king and not your own, so it is allowed. You get in check, but this is according to the rules.
4. I don't care about winning or losing one game more or less. Changing the rules is for improving the game, not for winning one player some points. I hope others player can see it so, too ;-)

Just reviewing a game in which Siletbob played Huhu (ID No 25631) in which Huhu was effectively in checkmate but Huhu could still make a move.

The rules (now) clearly state that Silentbob was in a winning position, therefore Huhu should not have been able to move.

Which is correct?

How about keeping two BKR ratings on this variation as, I think we all agree, black has, if played correctly, an unassailable advantage. I beleive the real interest would then be in trying to achieve and maintain the highest BKR playing White!

Whisperz: I didn't make up the rules and therefore it's done and over. Get over it and have fun.

Fencer - just a thought, but can you confirm when and what changes were made to the rules.

5655 - You did not mention that you lost your queen fair and square but won under rules which had been altered. You have no honour!

Fencer: You are doing a great job on this site and I want to thank you for doing a wonderful job. I hope everyone try not to take this gamesite for granted. This is by far the most and the best site I ever played. I do enjoy this gamesite alot. Thanks so much Fencer! :)

Fencer: Ok, Now I know and I'm truly sorry for the message that I stated earlier. But, I won't repeat that game since it was hard enough for me to win without the Queen. And I could of had a Draw on my very first game of Horde Chess before you added the no more moves of black pawn(s) rules.

The concepts of check and checkmate aren't really consistant here. If they were, an attack on any piece sufficient to explode the king would be check.
In the case where one is in "checkmate" but can explode the opponents king, why not allow him to?
Why not treat this similarly to Dark Chess where any move is allowed?

5655: Nope, it was my fault. The paragraph you have quoted was not in the rules. I've added it today after Whisperz pointed that out.

In the rule of Atomic Chess clearly stated, the player who has his/her king in a check (which is not a checkmate) does NOT have to resolve this check. Of course, if he/she make another than a winning move, the opponent will capture the king in the next move. I think you didn't read that part in the rules. If you have had put me in checkmate then it would be a winning game on your part. You need to read the rules on all games well enough before you complain.

Okay, I have sent a message to 5655 and await his/her response.

Maybe you should ask your opponents if they agree with that.

Just had another look at the game (ID 27317) and I would be happy to go back to after White's move 10 (which was Nb1-c3). Is this possible?

Removing the last move would probably not change the outcome, it would need to go back a far way as the game strategy was based on my understanding of the previous rules, likewise another game I lost, although I doubt it would have made a difference there.

The game ID in question is 27317. I would be happy if the game was just deleted from the database (or perhaps taken back to move 1) although I wonder if my opponent would as happy. Shame because I was a queen ahead before it all went awry (in my way of thinking).

Which game was it? [ID] I can restore it and remove the last move.

So now that i have lost a game (in a tournament no less) what recourse do I have?

It was missing in the rules. Sorry.

I am interested in the last discussion and your explanation. The rules now clearly state taht the King can be left in check but not checkmate. Did the rules you show change regarding this situation or are the rules in error. Please explain ...

No, he has problems with his vision (hence his name) and has since been able to alter his board to suit.

Done. Please test it.

Kevin: SilentBob already explained me the correct rules. I will fix the model ASAP :-)

Correct me if i'm wrong, but what i got from the rules what that you could not leave your king in check (or put your king in check - like normal check, without any pieces exploding). Because i had a game where my king was in normal check, and it would let me move as to leave my king in check. I can find the game # if needed. Thanks.

Thanx for the reply Fencer. I understand, but................... LOL
Great game idea!! I really enjoy it except for that one teeny thing. :-)

This is not a "credit", the captured pieces are displayed only for information and in-game statistics. They simply indicate which pieces are missing for white or black player, that's all. No points or credits are used :-)

Is there anyway to distinguish the difference between actual pieces captured and those that were sacrificed to capture these pieces?
When we sacrifice a piece to capture our opponents pieces I don't feel they should be given credit for capturing the piece. I hope that makes sense.

I have to agree also. Keep the game the same as it is now but maybe offer the "extra pieces" - only as a variation.:)

fair enough. thanx for all the input guys. im just a new user to brainking and not one of the best chess players on earth (but im trying). so thanx for all the help. ;-)

I agree with Uil. It shouldn't be change. It would be like changing the regular chess into non-classic. Players need to play it right and have pride in it, not take it the easy way out. I don't think history of this game should be change for the sake of it.

to Fencer: please don't, it makes it a totally other game and i don't think it will help. I am unbeaten playing white, so it is possible (with a little help from black), but it stays a "black-game"

I can try to add some white pawns, will that make it more balanced?

to Uil: I meant for white to check black only. I suck at this game. I even lost being black.